For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?

Reines continued by pointing out that there was no way "an informed reporter" would compare testifying before Congress with appearing an Sunday morning talk shows as Fishel seemed to do by asking why Clinton had "not been available to testify" in an interview on Fox News on the Sunday

NuttierThanEver:For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?

We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.

This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.

Let's see, off the top of my head, here are the current rabble of Benghazi conspiracy theories regarding Obama and his staff:

* He intentionally delayed a rescue operation while he watched terrorists burn the embassy live on dronecam, probably whilst laughing manically* He ordered Susan Rice to lie about the fact that it was a terrorists attack, instead insisting it was anti-Islam video protesters* He funneled Libyan arms after Ghaddafi's assassination into terrorist cells based in Lybia, which were then quickly smuggled out of the country* Hillary knows too much and was prepared to spill the beans, therefore she conveniently got a "concussion" and subsequent "blood clot"* Genera lPetraeus, seeing the handwriting on the wall, concocted a phony story about him farking some hotsy-totsy journalist as cover to remove himself from the spotlight so as to avoid having to testify before Congress

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

gerrymander:he executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video.

This is absolutely not true, but lets just say it was: In what possible world is it a problem for the Executive branch to actually do some research and get all the facts before telling everyone what happened? I know you like to stay infromed, but why should the Obama administration burn potential security assets on the ground to satisfy your immediate need to know?

gerrymander:NuttierThanEver: For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?

We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.

This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.

In the very least, asking for and then providing a specific date for when her testimony was rescheduled would be an appropriate request and response . If that had already been provided and he then asked the question, a snarky column in the Washington Post would be a lame response. Having him wake up in a lion cage would be cool.

gerrymander:NuttierThanEver: For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?

We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.

There was as much intelligence suggesting a terrorist attack would occur on September 11, 2012 (in Benghazi or anywhere else), as there was for September 11 in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Clearly Obama should have seen this coming.

gerrymander:the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video.

Sorry, but I thought this week we were busy blaming violence in movies for causing school shootings. Did I miss a newsletter explaining how Americans can be influenced to violence by movies but Libyans are immune?

Zasteva:gerrymander: the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video.

Sorry, but I thought this week we were busy blaming violence in movies for causing school shootings. Did I miss a newsletter explaining how Americans can be influenced to violence by movies but Libyans are immune?